the state of global freshwater is ofextreme importance for environmental managers, planners, policy-

and decision-makers,and the public at large.Freshwater ecosystem degradation is occurring at a greater ratethan for any other type of ecosystem. Moreover, the rate of degradation greatly exceedsthe rate of restoration efforts

of damaged ecological functions and processes (Falkenmark2004), putting freshwater ecosystems at risk.Provision and protection of high

quality

freshwater is asignificant

global environmental management and planning issue,typically addressed through water management planning efforts.Freshwater is requiredfor all living entities to survive and procreate,

and thus provision and protection of theappropriate quality and quantity

of freshwater needs to be ensured globally.This issuewill only be exacerbated with continued economic growth and human consumption,coupled

with approaching or exceeding

ecosystem

carrying capacity thresholds.

Freshwater provision and protection istypically addressed

through watermanagement

plans

to provide and protect freshwaterfor environmental, social, andeconomic reasons.Water management refers to the efforts made by humans to ensure theappropriate quality and quantity of freshwater is available for the various uses, as

Iexplorethe concept ofEcological Goods and Services (EGS)as it relates to water management.Falkenmark(2004) suggests that there is a need to better integrate EGS into water managementinorder to

provide a management framework that

adequately

considers environmental,social, and economicgoals

simultaneously.

By protecting EGS through integrated watermanagement planning efforts

conservation of freshwater may be achieved.

1.2Purpose of Research

The purpose of

this research is to develop a framework

that

articulates the critical

elementsrequired to incorporate EGS into effective

integrated water managementplanning, and then toevaluate the extent to which EGSare

protected via water

3

management planning

in Alberta

by applying the framework to a case study of

the NoseCreek Watershed.

1.3Research Question and Objectives

The main research question that guides this project is:To what extent does watermanagement planning in Alberta

protect ecological goods and services?”This researchproject is guided by 4 research objectives:

1)

To determine

and define what elements are to

be included in watermanagement planning so that EGS is integrated into the

managementand

planning process

by developing an evaluativecriteria framework;

2)

To identify what elements are (or are not) incorporated into Alberta’scurrent water management planning regime

and

assess

thecurrentlevelof implementation of these elements;

3)

To identify barriers and opportunities for integrating and

protectingEGS through water management planning

andidentifycorrespondingimplementation gaps; and

4)

To develop recommendations to improve water management planning,in the context of protecting EGS.

Identifyingspecificmechanisms forimplementing recommendations is beyond the scope of this researchproject, and would require further research.

1.4Project Relevance

Schindler and Donahue (2006) discuss the strong possibility of an

impending

water crisis in thewesternPrairieprovinces of Canada

partially due to climate changeimpacts, but also significantly due to anthropogenic land-use changes (Falkenmark 2004).It is necessary

to integrate all three components of the system–

social, economic, andenvironmental

–

when attempting to manage fortheuncertain conditions that climatechange and land-use changes bring.

The need to manage this uncertainty is also requiredin light of current and future water concerns.

Bridging the concept of EGS with watermanagement provides the potentialto weave social, economic, and environmental aspects

4

into water management, which iscurrentlymissing from the discussion (Falkenmark2004).

Ecological goods and services is a useful principle to analyze water managementas aquatic ecosystems are among the most degraded ecosystems globally, yet providesome of the most important EGS for humans and wildlife. Examples of freshwater EGSinclude:

2002). In addition, some EGS may not be replaceableonce they have been lost, and those that are replaceable are typically only replaced at alarge economic and resource cost (Wardrop et al.

2011)

over a long time period. Thus

there is a need to addressintegratedwatermanagement planning in the context ofprotecting EGS.

Alberta provides a useful location to assess EGS integration and protection bywater management planning. Alberta’s water policies and legislation indicate that there isa commitmentby the government

to protect the aquatic habitat;

however, certain goalssuch as acceptable water quality levels, riparian habitat, and instream flow needs (IFN’s)are not being met in several of the river basins in the Province, including basins that havewater management

plans in place. It is therefore useful to evaluateintegratedwatermanagementplanning in Alberta

based upon the extent that EGSprotection is occurring

in orderto identify how

integrated

water management

planning

could improve to furtherprotect EGS.

1.5Conceptual Framework

The following diagram represents the conceptual framework that guided

thisresearch

(Fig. 1). A conceptual framework, typically developed during the literaturereview,

identifies the main factors and variables to be studied

and the potentialrelationships between them (Miles and Huberman 1994).In this thesis I

attempt toevaluate the

protection of EGS based upon the

integration of ecological goods andservices within

integrated

water management planning in Alberta.Througha

literaturereviewIidentified key elements that need to be in place prior tointegratedwatermanagement planning being effective at protecting EGS.These

a combination of descriptive, evaluative, and designapproaches. The descriptive portion

of the research

entails discovering and describingwhat is currently occurring in Alberta with respect to water management planning andecological goods and services. The evaluative purpose is to assess, based upon thedescriptive portion, the extent to which water management planning is

successful in

integrating and protecting EGS. The evaluation is summative as the

water management

plan and planning process is being evaluated after the water management plan has beendeveloped and implemented (Preskill 2001). The design portion of the research purposeis critical for

developing recommendations to improve EGSprotection by integrated

water management planning, based on the prior descriptive and evaluative portions of theresearch.

The overall research strategy is an evaluative case study. A case study approachwas chosen because it is a useful research strategy for evaluating areal-worldphenomenon at a specific point in

time (Yin 2003, Creswell 2007)

and makes broadresearch issues more manageable (Robson 1993). The defining characteristic of a caseWater!Management!Planning!and!Ecological!Goods!and!Services!Protection!Adaptive!Management!Governance!Enabling!Environment!Ecosystem!Based!Management!

6

study is that the researcher uses a variety of types of data in order to synthesize the sameinformation (Robson 1993). I gathered data froma document analysis and key informantinterviews. The case studymethod

does not lend itself to linear and

prescribed steps,insteada flexible, adaptable,and iterative

research

approach

is utilized in case studyresearch

(Yin 2003). The Nose Creek Watershed was chosen as the case study for severalreasons. First, it is in the geographical and policy context of

my

interest. It is a sub-basinof the larger Bow River Basin, and this smaller

scale makes the research moremanageable. Nose Creek has an active Watershed Stewardship Group (WSG), has had awater management plan in place since 2008, the plan is currently being implemented, andthe Nose Creek Watershed Partnership (NCWP), the WSG for this basin,

has severalreadily-available documents for analysis on their website.

Prior to beginningthe evaluation

a set of evaluative criteria had to be developed.This evaluative criteria framework is a central goalof

this research, and the application ofthis framework to the case study provides further verification of the criteria in theframework as well as its applicability to the real world.The development of theframework

resource management, environmental goods and services,ecological goods and services, socio-ecohydrology, and ecohydrology. These terms weresearched on the databases Aqualine, Environment Complete, Web of Science, andGoogle Scholar. The selectioncriteria for includingarticles in the synthesis were articlesthat: discussed principles of water or watershed management planning, discussedexamples of water or watershed management planning, discussed issues of water orwatershed management planning, discussed ecological goods and services, or any articlesintegrating

those concepts.Any discussions

of implementationrequirements were also

7

included

as the literature review identified the need to implement plans in order to havesuccessful ecological protection. Gray literature was also included in this synthesis. Thisincluded government and non-governmental organizations’

documents, includingdocuments from the World Water Council, the Global Water Partnership, The Economicsof Ecology and Biodiversity, and The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.In addition,

any exemplary

cases of water management planning

and potential ecological goods andservicesprotectionthat were identified during the literature review were also used in thesynthesis to develop the evaluative criteria framework.

Guidelines for systemic review asoutlined by Pullin and Stewart(2006)

were utilized to guide the formulation of theframework. As well, Robson(1993)

provides a method for utilizing matrices inqualitative research in order to sort and analyze qualitative data. This method wasemployed in conjunction with the guidelines for a research synthesis (Pullin and Stewart2006).

interviews were conducted because thedescriptive portion of the research

–

triangulation of the evaluative criteria frameworkandsynthesis

with the results of thedocument analysis

to achieve final results

–

relied onthe information and experience of experts in the field. A combination of purposive andsnowball sampling was used to identify key informants (Creswell 2003). Purposivesampling allows researchers, using their own discretion, to identify who mayhave theinformation required by the research (Creswell 2003, Gray 2004). Snowball samplingenables other key informants to be identified (Creswell 2003, Gray 2004) by

people inthe field stating

who would have the information that the researcher is requesting.Snowball sampling can result in only talking to people who have similar opinions,

therefore the researcher must be careful to ensure that the wide range of potentialviewpointsis attained. Data saturation of key informant interviews occurred once keyinformants referred

to the same people to be interviewed

and no new information wasrevealed during interviews. This research included12key informants from WSG’s,WPAC’s,municipal government, provincial government, environmental lawyers,

watershed specialists,

and environmental non-governmental organizations in order to

8

obtain the same type of information from a variety of viewpoints. All peopleinterviewed were professionally involved in water management planning and protectionof ecological goods and

services, and people from the various organizations and expertisethat are involved in water management planning, in the context of the Nose Creekwatershed,

were all captured.

Three other people were contacted for interviews but didnot respond including

another Alberta Environment employee, an Alberta SustainableResource Development employee, and another municipal planner.The interviews weresemi-structured.

This ensured consistency between interviews

while simultaneouslyoffering

the ability to probeor pursueunique

informationor opinions held bythe peoplebeing interviewed

(Gray 2004).

The document analysis was conducted to gather information about the water

management plan and process. These documents included background documents on theNose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan

(NCWMP), the planning documentsfrom theNCWMP, and anyrelatedmonitoring documents.Government documents thatguide water management planning were also analyzed. These documents were identifiedthrough a publication search on government websites for documents relating to water orwatershed management

or ecological goods and services,or through intervieweesidentifying what documents were used as guidance. All documentswere

publiclyavailable ongovernment orNCWP

websites.

Data analysis methods included thematic and evaluative analysis. All interviewswere audiotaped and transcribed, in accordancewith theUniversity of Calgary ConjointEthics Board Approval.From the transcriptions

common trends and themes wereidentified by making notes through re-reading the transcripts, grouping the notes into a

spreadsheet to identify any minor or major similarities or differences, and thendeveloping a coherent set of categories (Stufflebeam and Shinkfield 2007).From thecommon trends and themes an evaluative rating was given, in the same format as for thedocument analysis as described below, in order to gain a richer sense of the extent eachevaluative element is incorporated into integrated water management planning in Alberta.

9

The documents were evaluated for each evaluative criteria element

by ratingeach elementas

high, medium, low, or none. The‘high’

rating indicated that the elementwas mentioned, defined, and a clear implementation plan for including the element waspresent. The‘medium’

rating was given if the element was mentioned and defined

butthere was no direction or guidance for implementation. The‘low’

rating was given if theelement was mentioned

but no definition or further elaboration was given.‘None’

indicated that the element was not mentioned. Fromthe evaluation of the documents

common trends were identified for each evaluativecriterion, in the same wayin whichtrends were identified in the interview analysis. The trends from the document analysis

and the interview analysis were then combined in order to determinea final ranking,

aswell as to provide triangulation to check the accuracy and validity of the results (Creswell2003).

Following this trend synthesis

barriers and opportunities to protect EGS throughintegratedwater management planning were identified to facilitate a discussion onrecommendations. This design aspect is a direct approach with barriers, opportunities,and recommendations being arrived at directly from thedataanalysis.

The following diagram illustrates

the research method process, which was not alinear, but rather an iterative, approach.

10

Figure 2. Research Method

Process

1.7Context Background–

Alberta and Nose Creek Watershed

The management of water is an importantissue to the people of Alberta. In 2003the thenMinistryof Alberta Environment (AENV)

(now the current Ministry ofEnvironment and Sustainable Resource Development [ESRD]

–

it should be noted that atthe time of this research the Ministry was Alberta Environment, so for the purpose of thisresearch it is the acronym AENV that is used)

issued theWater for Life

policy, aprogressive policy with the 3 goals of:1)safe and abundant drinking water,2)healthyaquatic ecosystems, and3)water for a growing economy (Alberta 2003). The policy wasrenewed in 2008 to include knowledge and research, partnerships, and conservation askey elements to achieving the policy goals (AWC 2008). The Government also identifiedWatershed Planning Advisory Councils (WPAC’s) for the seven major watershedsidentified

in the Province, and Watershed Stewardship Groups (WSG’s) for the smallersub-basins. These groups were charged with developing plans

and theassociated Watershed Planning Advisory Council for each watershed.

Figure 3. Map of Watershed Boundaries of Alberta

Source: Alberta Environment

While theWaterfor Life

policy provides guidance for water management, theWater Act

(2000)provides

the legislativeauthority

for water management planning. Thepurpose of theWater Act

is to “support and promote the conservation and management ofwater, including the wise allocation and use of water” (Water Act 2000). The Act callsfor a provincial planning framework to outline how water management planning should

12

occur, which led to theFramework for Water Management Planning

by theGovernment of Alberta in 2001.Included in this framework was aStrategy for theProtection of the Aquatic

Environment.All

three documents, theWater Act,Frameworkfor Water Management Planning, and theWater for Life

policy are closely aligned withsimilar goals. However,Water for Life

advocates that

water management should beconducted

in a watershed management fashion, while theFramework for WaterManagement Planning

does not provide guidance on how to

do this. In 2008

the AlbertaWater Council (AWC) developed aFramework for Watershed Management Planning

tobetter define what that means

and provide guidance on how to conduct that type ofplanning

for provincial and municipal planners, WPAC’s, WSG’s, and other stakeholderswho are attempting todevelop awatershed management plan. While there arepartnerships

and stakeholder involvement, the Government of Alberta still remainsaccountable overall for water and watershed management planning (Berzins 2006).

TheWater Act

controls the allocation and uses of water

and

guides theapprovalof

any

proposed

project that would have an impact on water

bodies. Albertaoperates witha “first in time, first in right”

(FTFR)

principle of water allocation, meaning that

seniorwater licenses receive their entire allocated amount of water prior to junior licenses.Theauthority for approval of a Water Management Plan

resides within

theWater

Act

and theLieutenant Governor in Council

or the Minister

has the authority toapprove a WaterManagement Plan.

If the Water Management Plan has been approved under theWaterAct

it must be considered when the Director is approving projects that may impact thatwaterbody.Under theWater Act

the Director

designated by the

Minister

also

has theauthority to set Water Conservation Objectives (WCO’s)

whichare

water licenses

thatrequire a specific amount of water to remain in the basin to restore flows, improveaquatic habitat, or for recreational purposes. During a license transfer the

provincial

government has the ability to withhold up to 10% of the volume being transferred forenvironmental purposes. These three legislative tools are theprimarymeans

within the

legislation for protection of the environment

related to water management.

13

The management of water involves multiple jurisdictions.TheEnvironmentalProtection and Enhancement Act(EPEA), also under AENV, is the legislation thatregulates the release of substances into a waterbody.Alberta Sustainable ResourceDevelopment

is

responsible for land practices onpublic lands,

which may have an impacton waterbodies

(this department is now a part of ESRD). Municipal governments areresponsible for water treatment,

and waste and stormwater management. The FederalGovernment may also havejurisdiction over water management. The Department ofFisheries and Oceans (DFO) is required to be involved in

any project that may impact afish-bearing stream,

Transport Canada is concerned with navigable waterbodies,

andthere are a variety of Federal Departments that are responsible for water on Federal lands

such as military bases,

National Parks, and First Nations’ Reserves. As well, thetransboundary nature of flowing waterbodies has led to several agreements ofapportionments that

outline what percent of flow, and in what quality, is necessitated toother jurisdictions that the water body flows into.

Alberta’s major players in watermanagement are agriculture in the form of irrigation, and industry, in particular the oiland gas industry. Nose

Creek was chosen for this case study because itonly involvesFisheries and Oceans Canada at the Federal level,it is not a transboundary basin,it is notin an irrigation district, and there is not a significant level of oil and gas development.Hence

the complexity of the case is minimized and allows for a focus on the elements ofprimary interest for this research.Responsibility for the management of Nose Creek liesmainlywith the Provincial and Municipal governments

and the Watershed StewardshipGroup.

The Nose Creek Watershed Partnership (NCWP) is the WSG for the Nose Creekwatershed basin in Southern Alberta. The Nose Creek is a tributary of

the Bow River;

thecreek begins

in the Town of Crossfield,

flows through Airdrie, and meets

the Bow Riverin Calgary near the Calgary Zoo (NCWP 2012) (see Figure 2). A gross area of 989 km2

and an effective area of 743 km2

are drained by this watershed (NCWP 2012). The NoseCreek is a spring-fedstream, with the

highest volume of water from thespringarising in

McPherson Coulee. West Nose Creek is the main tributary to the Nose Creek,accountingforapproximately

33% of the watershed area,joining the Nose Creek near Deerfoot Trail

14

directly west of the Calgary International Airport. The main stem of Nose Creek is 65km long (NCWP 2012).

Figure 4.

Nose Creek Watershed Basin Map

Source: NCWP Website

The NCWPinitiated the development of

a Water Management Plan in 2005 withthe final draft being released in 2008.

Even though theAWC’s

Framework for WatershedManagementPlanning

was not releasedat this timethe intent was to develop this plan ina watershed fashion.The

planning process was initiated because of citizen concernswiththe water quality in the basin.

The Nose Creek drains a diversity of land uses including:rural, agriculture including cattle ranching and dryland agriculture, industrial, and variousforms of residential urban development. It flows through an Environmental Reserve and agolf course inthe City of Airdrie. Municipal partners in the Nose Creek watershedinclude the Town of Crossfield, the City of Airdrie, the City of Calgary, andtheM.D. ofRocky View.The Airport Authority is also a partner.The main cause of land use changecurrently in the Nose Creek basin is urban residential development, most significantly in

15

the form of ex-urban and peri-urban development in the M.D. ofRocky View, whichhas caused an increase in stormwater runoff into the stream. The main goals of theNCWP are to improve water quality and riparian health in the watershed.

This research is limited due to the nature of being a single casestudy. Recommendations may not be generalizable

but

this approach does allow a deepinvestigation into a watershed in Alberta, and thussome of the recommendations may

besuitable forother watersheds in the Alberta context. The validity and reliability of theresearch was ensured through triangulation and reflection during the entire researchprocess.

16

Chapter2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Global Significance and History of Watershed Management

Freshwater ecosystems are finite, vulnerable (Solanes et al. 1999), and are beingdegraded or destroyed at a faster rate than ever before in history and significantly fasterthan they are being restored (Baron et al. 2002). Integrated water resource management(IWRM) and watershed management are integrated approaches to land use and watermanagement planning. The focus is on waterbodies and associated ecosystems andinvolves discussions with scientists (both natural and social), policy-

and decision-makers,and other stakeholders (Falkenmark 2004). The management goals are to ensure a safeand adequate water supply for human use and economic development withoutcompromising the biophysical environment. Water is essential for human and ecosystemhealth, socioeconomic development, energy, food and materials, distribution of silt andsolutes, and habitat (Falkenmark 2008). Global degradation of freshwater is of significantconcern for humans and our well being. Beyond use by humans, these ecosystems areessential for biodiversity and ecological function. Climate change is altering anddegrading watersheds but other human impacts on watersheds, particularly land usechange from native ecosystems to human developments, possibly rivals the impacts ofclimate change (Falkenmark 2008). This water stress is a complex and emerging issuewithin natural resources management, wherein the cause is not simple to categorize as itincludes environmental, economic, and social factors (Gearey et al. 2006).

Water management and concern over water is a relatively recent topic in globaldiscussions, but throughout history has often been the pivotal point of conflict andcivilization degradation. The first few global discussions regarding sustainabledevelopment focused on land degradation and did not address water management(Falkenmark 2008). The UN Conference on Water occurred in 1977 (Rahaman et al.2005), after which water issues largely disappeared from global discussions until theInternational Conference on Water and Environment in Dublin, 1992. Out of thisconference arose the Dublin Principles for water management which include:“freshwater is a finite and vulnerable resource essential to sustain life, development, and the

17

environment; water development and management should be based on a participatoryapproach involving users, planners, and policy makers at all levels; women play a centralrole in the provision, management, and safeguarding of all water; and water has aneconomic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good”

(Huffman 2009). The Second World Water Forum and Ministerial Conference in 2000was revolutionary because it included a range of

stakeholders, not just governmentofficials and formal experts (Rahaman et al. 2005). Five critical actions that wereidentified from this conference for water management included: involving allstakeholders in integrated management, moving to full-cost pricing of water, increasedpublic funding for research,more cooperation for international basin management, andincreasing investments in water (Pangare et al. 2006). The International Conference onFreshwater in 2001 identified the largegap between policyand implementation(Rahaman et al. 2005). The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburgin 2002 identified IWRM as one of the key components for achieving sustainabledevelopment goals (Rahaman et al. 2005). These three decades of conferences resulted inmany commitments to IWRM, most of which have not been implemented (Rahaman et al.2005). Freshwater ecosystems are still being degraded and destroyed.

Watersheds provide many important ecosystem goods and services includingwater filtration

among others. Water management planning hasevolved toplanning based on the scale of a watershed because it is impossible to protectthe freshwater body without protecting the larger drainage basin. A watershed is definedas the geographic area where the land base drains into the same river, wetland,groundwater recharge area, etc. Thus a watershed includes the terrestrial land

base,aquatic bodies on the land base,and theconnectinggroundwater(Palmer et al. 2009).The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 found that the human population andlevel of urbanization is increasing globally, with ex-urban residential developmentsoccurring at the fastest rate of human developments (Wisdom et al. 2009) and watershedfunction is being degraded due to

ecosystem

changes (Wisdom et al. 2009) that occur

18

with this increased development, land use, andlandcover change. When watershedfunction deteriorates ecological goods and services are

at risk, impacting human andwildlife populations. It is important to integrate the concept of ecological goods andservices into integrated water management planning to subsequently achieve protectionof ecological goods and services through water management plan implementation.

2.2 Ecological Goods and Services

The concept of “ecological goods and services” (EGS) can be used tofacilitate adialogue between economists and ecologists (Brismar 2009). Ecological goods andservices is a relatively new concept, with the first initial valuation study conducted viathe Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005. A theory behind EGS is that

by beingable to place the products that ecosystems provide in economic terms it is possible tomake an economic argument for protection of the ecosystem components that providethose products (Wardrop et al. 2011). Conservation and development are both issues ofeconomics and thus an economic case for conservation in addition to development needsto be made (Folke 2006) even if the conservation value is not as easily defined as thedevelopmental value. This valuation is not easily defined and there are no

consistentmethods to valuation (Nilsson 2008), however economists have devised several methodsto apply to valuation efforts. There is a danger that focusing on EGS–which is a conceptdefined by the usefulness of ecosystem processes and functions to humans–

2001) which is not asimple empirical matter. Valuation of EGS does not have utility in and of itself but itbecomes a useful tool to guide management decisions (Winkler 2006). Therefore,valuation numbers should not be considered to be exact economic tools but rather adecision-making tool.

Ecological goods and services are a result of ecosystem functions and processes(de Groot et al. 2002). Ecosystem functions are the physical, chemical, and biologicalprocesses that occur in ecosystems (Dobbs et al. 2011). These ecosystem functions

Ecosystem services are the end products of various ecosystemfunctions (Dobbs etal.

2011) and ecosystem goods are material products resulting from ecosystem processes(Dobbs et al. 2011). Humans define ecosystem goods and services and their subsequentvaluation, making EGS a normative concept. Ecological goods andservices are nottypically represented in policy or legislation, which is postulated to be contributing to thedegradation of ecosystems (Lovett and Noel 2008) because there is no requirement orguidance for protection. While the concept of EGS has its challenges, in particular themethods of valuation (Nilsson 2008), focusing on protecting EGS has the potential to besimpler and more quantifiable than attempting to protect ecosystem processes andfunctions themselves (Burger 2008), making it more useful for managers and planners. Inaddition it maintains the benefit of managing on an ecosystem scale as opposed to asingle species scale (Euliss 2011), and an ecosystem scale is the most appropriate way tomanage watersheds (Baron 2002, Falkenmark 2004). Placing the focus of integratedwater management planning on the protection of EGS provides an opportunity to improveour management, implementation, and monitoring tools in order to succeed in betterprotection of natural ecosystems.

The Global Water Partnership in 2000 defined IWRM as “a process that promotesthe coordinated development and management of water, land, and their related resources,maximizing economic and social welfare without compromising the sustainability of vital

all sectors, treating water as an economic, environmental,and social good, relying on stakeholder engagement and participation, and developingintegrated policies, regulatory, and

institutional frameworks with

participatorymanagement and new governance structures

(Pangare et al. 2006). While theseprinciplesand definitions are very vague and not defined in a meaningful way, they serve well ashigh-level guidance principles for the community of watershed managers. However thereis very little research in the literature on whether these principles actually work to achievethe goals set out by IWRM or if these principles are even implemented in practice. Thatbeing said, integrated water management planning is an extremely importantmanagement and planning regime as it combines land-use planning with the goal ofwaterbody protection. The following discussion attempts to distill some of these vagueand large principles into entities that can be more meaningfully discussed and analyzed.

One of the largest and most recurring themes in watershed managementacademicliterature is stakeholder engagement and participation. Watershed management planningis postulated to only be effective if stakeholders are engaged throughout all stages of theplanning process, from inception through to monitoring (Achet and Fleming 2006). Forstakeholder involvement to be achieved meaningfully natural resource managementprinciples indicate that the plan should be developed through a collaborative decision-making process, with goals and objectives defined by the stakeholders (Bonnell andKoontz 2002) and with clear mechanisms and pathways for stakeholders' needs andinterests to be integrated into the discussion (Butterworth et al. 2002). Because watershedmanagement planning should be place-based the values and needs of the people living ina particular watershed need to be integrated into the plan (Allan et al. 2008). A flexiblesocial infrastructure is required that allows integration of diverse knowledge and intereststo work toward watershed protection (Flitcroft et al. 2008,

a variety of stakeholders can result innew ideas and issues being brought forward and opposing parties better understanding

21

each other (Gruber 2010). Barriers to collaboration include: institutions, power elites,parties not having a legitimate claim toparticipate,

ideological differences, constitutionalor legal issues at stake, or negative historical legacies (Selin and Chavez 1995). Issuesetting is a crucial component to developing a watershed management plan and issuesneed to be defined and measurable (Selin and Chavez 1995). The main issues involvingstakeholder engagement from the literature indicate that stakeholders must be involved inthe plan from inception through to monitoring and implementation, that they should beinvolved in a meaningfulway where their suggestions are taken into legitimateconsideration, that the proper stakeholders are identified, and that the process befacilitated so as to achieve a level of social learning and collaboration.

Integration is another fundamental principle of watershed management.Integration, for the purpose of this research study, is defined as ensuring the inclusion ofall components that are described as needing "integration". Integration of all levels andsectors affecting watershed management, and being affected by watershed management,is an important step towards protecting ecological goods and services of watersheds(Alahuhta et al. 2006) as it enables all sectors that impact water to have a discussionabout management plans (Lenders and de Groot2006). The current policy environmentresults in

many independent planning and decision-makingefforts to address the issue,often with minimal

coordination (Deason et al. 2008). Integration needs to occur betweenthe different components of the resource (ex. groundwater and surface water), betweenvarious sectors and stakeholders, including interagency coordination across multiplelevels of government (Genskow 2009), amongst people involved in the watershed, andacross different administrative and jurisdictionalboundaries (Butterworth et al. 2007).

Water management planning also relies on overcoming the challenge of balancingthe need for decentralization of local government management and planning with a strongregional leadership body that has the resources todevelop and

implement plans (Berg andBenDor 2008). Management needs to be site-specific to the basin in order to incorporatethe specific needs and issues of the basin and basin stakeholders (Butterworth et al. 2007).This requires a meaningful transfer of powers, resources, and tools to the local

22

government. Historically decentralization has been minimal with lack of empowermentfor communities to manage ecological processes (Coombes 2007). Clear regional-levelgoals and objectives for natural resources management are needed to guide the localgovernments conducting site-specific management (Genskow 2009), and the appropriatepowers and tools need to be deferred to the local governments.

An enabling environment for integrated water management planning is alsorequired. This might require a change in current water and land management policy andlegislation (Lenders 2006). This enabling environment requires the political will tosupport and guide water management planning by creating policies, legislation, andregulations that will support integrated water management planning (Pangare et al. 2006,van der Keur 2008). This requires public pressure and support. The role of government inthis type of policy environment is to mobilize financial and humanresources, developlegislation, standards and regulations, monitor and assess the use of water and landresources, and create opportunities for public participation (Pangare et al. 2006).Successful implementation of integrated water management planning policies requires anempowering legislative/policy environment that guides and enables the integrated watermanagement planning process to occur (Medema et al. 2008).

Different management and government tools need to be in place in the enablingenvironment(de Stefano et al. 2010, Saravanan et al. 2009) and if tools are in the form oflegislation and regulations they need to be enforceable, which is often not the case in theenvironmental sector (de Stefano et al. 2010). Integrated water management plans shouldbe legislated in order to have statutory backing (Quevauviller 2010). This is where aregional body becomes important, as they typically have the resources and authority toregulate (Berg and BenDor 2007). There are two major problems with respect tolegislation and regulation: lack of coordinationand incomplete enforcement(Song et al.2010). In addition, the use of water for the purpose of the environment needs to belegitimized, with water reserved specifically for strictly environmental purposes (Hukkaet al. 2010).

23

IWRM is not without its criticisms. The basin approach is not alwaysadministratively possible (Butterworth et al. 2008) and because ecological boundariesspan administrative and political jurisdictional lines there is an issue of scale

(Genskow etal. 2009), including both spatial and temporal scales. The concepts of IWRM do not haveuniversal definitions, and therefore mean many things to

different people (Garcia 2009)that

disables

the development of

standard methods and tools to conduct watermanagement planning. Therefore, these definitions need to be clearly established. Thereis a large gap between the theory and practical implementation of IWRM (Gearey et al.2006) and it cannot be assumed that by applying the theory implementation of plans willnecessarily occur. There is a lack of understanding including a lack of adequate skills,expertise, awareness, adequate and reliable data, and gaps in knowledge and technology(Gearey et al. 2006) around socio-ecoyhdrologic systems. The need to integrate so manysectors and people adds to the already complex system (Grigg 2008, Medema et al. 2008).In addition there are huge funding issues, social and institutional issues, fragmentedauthority, andlogisticalissues (Lurie and Hibbard 2006,Medema et al. 2008). There isalso a problem of translating generic, science-based management concepts andframeworks into practice (Arthington 2006). However, the broad principles of IWRMand watershed management planning, as well as some of the fundamental requirements toconducting IWRM, can be utilized to guide water management planning towards the goalof protecting EGS. EGS has also been criticized for similar reasons as IWRM, and it hasbeen suggested that these two concepts are essentially the same,

just utilizing differentapproaches (Cook and Spray 2012). While these criticisms are valid, this research projectis not purporting that these concepts are perfect.

The evaluative criteria frameworkdeveloped in this research integrates these two theories, and identifies how the concept ofEGS can be integrated into IWRM in a meaningful way.

Through the evaluationpresented in this research what is working–

and what is not working–

with regard toprotecting ecosystems through integrated water management

planning will be analyzed.Even if the specifics of these concepts are not perfect, the high level principles canprovide guidance to people attempting to protect the environment via integrated watermanagement planning.

24

While there is a diverse breadth of literature regarding what it means to conductintegrated water management planning, with key principles discussed above, very littleliterature addresses the integration of ecological goods and services into watershedmanagement planning (Falkenmark 2008). Ecological goods and services can provide auseful framework for monitoring and evaluating success of watershed managementbecause in protecting ecological goods and services protection of the triple bottom line ofenvironment, economic, and social goals can be achieved. The question then arises: howcan water management planning be utilized in a way that can help to conserve ecologicalgoods and services of watersheds, and what elements are needed to aid this protection?

2.4 Current Indirect Attemptsat Integrating EGS Into Water ManagementPlanning

One way scientists and managers agree would help protect ecological goods andservices in freshwater ecosystems is by managing rivers in a way that mimics naturalflow patterns (Arthington et al. 2006) instead of managing flows based purely onachieving an adequate water supply for human needs. Flow patterns are naturallydynamic and variable,

IFN's should be determined and protected for waterbodies in integrated watermanagement plans. One thing to aid the implementation of policies is to identifymeasurable planning objectives and targets (Deason et al. 2008) and instream flow needsprovide a measurable unit. This could also help to legitimize water for the use of theenvironment and mayenable a measurable target of the quantity of water that needs to beallocated for environmental purposes. In addition, managing watercourses based on theirnatural variability builds more resilience capacity back into the system than is presentwhen management of the river is based solely on human demand.

Another component that could protect water for ecological use is establishing andimplementing limits on freshwater extraction, authorizing the environment as a legitimateuser of water, and creating transfer mechanisms to reallocate waterpurely for

25

environmental purposes

(Garrick et al. 2009). Once degraded, ecosystem servicesrecover slowly or not at all, and

this

slow recovery and

potential

irreversibility can equala

loss of ecosystem services and goods (Carpenter et al. 2009). This has a negativeimpact environmentally, socially, and economically. Innovative policy and legislation isrequired to enable the environment to be recognized as legitimate thus enablingprotection.

Economic tools are also an

option for protection of EGS especially to make aneconomic case for conservation. Environmental goods and services are public goodscharacterized by being non-rival, non-excludable, and therefore result in market failures(Ezebilo 2009). An economic tool

that could be used within water management planningis incentive-based approaches, which tend to result in lower costs than command andcontrol approaches (Ezebilo 2009). Incentive-based approaches include

things such as:taxes, fees, charges, subsidies,and tax-subsidy combinations (Ezebilo 2009). Amechanism to allocate use rights through these incentive-based transfer processes canhelp to establish a limit on the use of the resource (Garrick et al. 2009).

2.5 Evaluation of Management Goals

It

is not enough to have integrated water

management planning principles andpractices in place; monitoring and evaluation of success is a very important aspect toidentify if goals are being met. Due to the variability and unknowns that climate and landuse change bring adaptive management regimes are needed to manage those variances(Arthington 2006, Pittock and Lankford 2010, Sadoff and Muller 2008). Thus, ifmonitoring and measurement of success is occurring, it creates the ability to learn fromprevious attemptsat management in order to improve future management outcomes.

Prior to evaluation an agreed upon definition of success needs to be determinedwhich means creating definable and measurable targets and outcomes (Deason 2010,Gleason 2011) for all goals, both

normative and descriptive. Monitoring based onecological goods and services inadvertently monitors ecosystem processes and functions(Burger 2008). Historically most monitoring has been conducted by measuring chemicalparameters of water bodies, in partbecause these are definable and measurable

26

components, however they do not necessarily give an indication of the natural resourcecondition (Malos 2008). Monitoring the quantity and quality of specific EGS pre-

andpost-management interventions (Alexanderand Allan 2007) can provide a strongerpicture of the state of the ecosystem than that obtained exclusively through measuringchemical parameters. Defining what EGS to monitor will come from stakeholders, butmonitoring plans need to consider type, duration, quality, and reporting (Kondolf 2007)

components. It is important to commit to monitoring even if the outcomes take a longtime to materialize and are difficult to measure (Chene 2009) as this is how managers anddecision-makers can learn from management plans and implementations, both of whichcontribute to building a real adaptive management regime (Butterworth 2010).

2.6 Local Issues in Watershed Management Planning in Alberta

Integrated water management planning

is extremely important to the Prairie

provinces, including Alberta, particularly in light of predicted effects that climate changewill have on prairie regions (Schindler 1997), with issues related to water scarcity andgovernance/management rated most important (Hurlbert 2009). There are threeinstitutional models for water management: government agency management, user-basedmanagement, and market-based management (Hurlbert 2009). Government agencymanagement is associated with water regarded as public property and the governmentdefers authority for management ofwater to an agency that determines water rights andallocations(Hurlbert 2009). User-based management is water regarded as commonproperty with usersconducting management

(Hurlbert 2009). Market-based managementis water owned as

private property andwater is allocatedthrough private transactions(Hurlbert 2009). Alberta mainly operates on a government agency based managementsystemhoweverseems to be slowly adopting a market-based regime (Hurlbert 2009).This does not readily enable the decentralization and collaborative planning that thegovernment has stated a commitment to (Hurlbert 2009). That being said, market-basedmanagement may create transfer mechanisms so water could be shifted from a previouslyallocated use to an environmental use (Gearey 2006). Alberta is attemptingdecentralization efforts with the development of Watershed Planning and AdvisoryCouncils (WPAC’s) and Watershed Stewardship Groups (WSG’s) who develop water

27

and watershed management plans, however, it is

unclear if these plans will beimplemented (Hurlbert 2009) or contribute to successful EGS protection.

Another issue with integrated water management planning in Alberta is that theMinister who is responsible for the environment is not responsible for significantdevelopments having ramifications onwatersheds

(Hurlbert 2009). Alberta water licensesoperate on the principle of prior appropriation and while this provides a simple and